How safe is active surveillance strategy of small renal masses?
Authors:
Peter Weibl 1,2,3; Boris Kollárik 2,3
Authors‘ workplace:
Department of Urology
Medical University of Vienna, Austria
1; Urologické oddelenie
Univerzitná nemocnica – Petržalka
Bratislava, Slovenská republika
2; Uroclinic, s. r. o., Bratislava
Slovenská republika
3
Published in:
Ces Urol 2012; 16(1): 13-19
Category:
Review article
Overview
The changing aspect of the rising incidence of small renal masses (SRM) has led to the establishment of minimally invasive procedures with the intent to achieve equivalent or similar treatment results when compared to standard partial nephrectomy. Active surveillance (AS) in patients with SRM represents an alternative treatment option in high risk patients with short life expectancy or in those who refuse any kind of surgical intervention. The aim of this review is to present current knowledge and dilemmas on AS strategy.
Key words:
renal cell carcinoma, small renal masses, activesurveillance.
Sources
1. Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Th e natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urology 2006; 175: 425–431.
2. Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JFJR. Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 1999; 281: 1628–1631.
3. Lee CT, Kath J, Shi W, Th aler HT, Reuter VE and Russo P. Surgical management of renal tumors 4cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urology 2000; 163: 730–736.
4. Hsu RM, Chan DY, Siegelman SS. Small renal cell carcinomas: correlation of size with tumor stage, nuclear grade, and histologic subtype. Am J Roentgenology 2002; 182(3): 551–557.
5. Licht MR, Novick AC, Goormastic M. Nephron sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urology 1994; 152: 39–42.
6. Miller J, Fischer C, Freese R, Altmannsberger M, Weidner W. Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma is tumor size a suitable parameter for indication? Urology 1999; 54: 988–993.
7. Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HCH, Susani M, Waldert M, Seitz CH, Schmidbauer J, Marberger M. Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4cm or less in diameter. J Urology 2006; 176: 896–899.
8. Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, Hollenbeck BK. Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment eff ect. J Nat Cancer Inst 2006; 98(18): 1331–1334.
9. Weibl P, Klingler HCH, Klatte T, Remzi M. Current limitations and perspectives in single port surgery: Pros and cons Laparo-Endoscopic Single-Site Surgery (LESS) for renal surgery. Diagnostic Th erapeutic Endoscopy 2010; Article ID 759431, 3 pages. doi: 10.1155/2010/759431.
10. Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG. Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma – a meta-analysis and review. J Urology 2008; 179(4): 1227–1233.
11. Ljundberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merserburger AS, Mulders PFA, Patard JJ, Sinescu IC. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: the 2010 update. Eur Urology 2010; 58: 398–406.
12. Remzi M, Marberger M. Renal Tumor Biopsies for Evaluation of Small Renal Tumors: Why, in Whom, and How? Eur Urology 2009; 55(2): 359–367.
13. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Fox EB, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. Delayed intervention of sporadic renal masses undergoing active surveillance. Cancer 2008; 112(5): 1051–1057.
14. Crispen PL, Viterbo R, Boorjian SA, Greenberg RE, Chen DYT, Uzzo RG. Natural history, growth kinetics and outcomes of untreated clinically localized renal tumors under active surveillance. Cancer 2009; 115: 2844–2852.
15. Weibl P, Romančík M, Letkovičová M, Kollárik B, Lenko V, Lutter I, Obšitník M. Prognostický význam histologického nálezu cystickej degenerácie solídneho karcinómu obličky. Analýza a korelácia histopatologických parametrov vzhľadom na veľkosť nádoru. Klin Urológia 2009; 5(1): 13–18.
16. Weibl P. Cystický a multicystický karcinóm obličky. In: Breza J, Marenčák J, Minčík I. a kol. Nádory obličiek. Bratislava: POĽANA 2008; 281–302.
17. Weibl P, KlatteT, Kollarik B, Waldert M, Schuller G, Geryk B, Remzi M. Interpersonal variability and present diagnostic dilemmas in Bosniak classifi cation system. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2011; 45(4): 239–244.
18. Weibl P, Lutter I, Breza J, Pechan J, Blasko M, Gajdosova T, Pindak D. Cystic renal cell carcinoma – rare clinical fi nding. Radiographic variations of tumor/cyst appearance and further diagnostic work-up. Brat Lek Listy 2006; 107(3): 96–100.
19. Duff ey BG, Choyke PL, Glenn G, Grubb RL, Venzon D, Linehan WM, Walther MM. 2004. Th e relationship between renal tumor size and metastases in patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease. J Urology 2004; 172(1): 63–65.
20. Guiot C, Degiorgis PG, Delsanto PP, Gabriele P, Deisboeck TS. Does tumor growth follow a “universal law”? J Th eor Biology 2003; 225(2): 147–151.
21. Plevritis SK, Salzman P, Sigal BM, Glynn PW. A natural history model of stage progression applied to breast cancer. Stat Medicine 2007; 26(3): 581–595.
22. Punnen S, Haider MA, Lockwood G, Moulding F, O’Malley ME, Jewett MA. Variability in size measurement of renal masses smaller than 4 cm on computerized tomography. J Urology 2006; 176: 2386–2390.
23. Volpe A, Panzarella T, Rendon RA, Haider MA, Filipos IK, Jewett MAS. Th e natural history of incidentally detected renal masses. Cancer 2004; 100: 738–745.
24. Weibl P, Hora M, Urge T, Lutter I, Romančík M, Obšitník M. Vzájomné porovnanie progresie malých solídnych lézií obličiek (priemer versus objem s použitím 1 a 2 rozmerov lézie). Klin Urológia 2007; 3(1): 16–20.
25. Mues AC, Haramis G, Badani K, Gupta M, Benson MC, Mckiernan J, Landman J. Active surveillance for larger (cT1bN0M0 and cT2N0M0) renal cortical neoplasms. Urology 2010; 76(3): 620–623.
26. Beisland CH, Hjelle K, Reisaeter LAR, Bostad L. Observation should be considered as an alternative in management of renal masses in older and comorbid patients. Eur Urology 2009; 55: 1419–1429.
27. Rosales JC, Haramias G, Moreno J, Badani K, Benson MC, Mckiernan J, Casazza C, Landman J. Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urology 2010; 183: 1698–1702.
28. Staehler M, Haseke N, Stadler T, Zilinberg E, Nordhaus C, Nuhn P, Khoder WY, Karl A, Stief CHG. Th e growth rate of large renal masses opposes active surveillance. BJU International 2009; 105: 928–931.
29. Jewet MA, Finelli A, Link I, Morash CH, Chin JL, Pautler S, Siemens R, Tanguay S, Rendon RA, Gleave ME, Drachenberg D, Evans A, Gallie B, Haider M, Kachura J, Panzarella T, Chow R, Ma C, Mattar K, Fleshner N. Active surveillance of small renal masses: a prospective multi-center Canadian uro-oncology group trial. J Urology 2009; 181(4): 320.
30. Kunkle DA, Crispen PL, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, Uzzo RG. Enhancing renal masses with zero net growth during active surveillance. J Urology 2007; 177(3): 849–853.
31. Weibl P, Lutter I, Obšitník M, Ondriš M, Karwandgar M, Romančík M, Gajdošová T, Kraľovičová M, Blažek M. Sledovanie solídnych lézií obličiek do priemeru 4cm – porovnanie rastu a progresie lézií s patologickým a bez patologického postkontrastného vysycovania. Klin Urológia 2006; 2(2): 85–88.
32. Kollarik B, Romancik M, Obsitnik M. Growth rates are similar in potentially benign and malignant small renal masses detected incidentally. Prospective analysis of diff erent groups of patients according to the radiographic criteria. Brat Lek Listy 2010; 111(7): 378–380.
33. Roberts WW, Bhayani SB, Allaf ME, Chan TY, Kavoussi LR, Jarrett TW. Pathological stage does not alter the prognosis for renal lesions determined to be stage T1 by computerized tomography. J Urology 2005; 173(3): 713–715.
34. Weibl P, Lutter I, Romancik M, Karwandgar M, Kollarik B, Obsitnik M. Spontaneous regression of complex cystic renal mass Bosniak class IV – a rare phenomenon. Brat Lek Listy 2009; 110(3): 195–196.
35. Lamb GW, Bromwich EJ, Vasey P, Aitchison M. Management of renal masses in patients medically unsuitable for nephrectomy – natural history, complications, and outcome. Urology 2004; 64: 909–913.
36. Ross JM, Abdolell M, Trottier G, Pringle CH, Lawen JG, Bell DG, Jewett MAS, Klotz L, Rendon RA. Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urology 2011; 59(5): 863–867.
37. Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, Canter DJ, Viterbo R, Chen DY, Jewett MA, Greenberg RE, Uzzo RG. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: A systematic review and pooled analysis. Cancer 2011; 118: 997–1006.
38. Mucksavage P, Ramchandani P, Malkowicz SB, Guzzo TJ. Is ultrasound imaging inferior to computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating renal mass size? Urology 2012; 79(1): 28–31.
39. American Urological Association. Guidelines for the management of clinical stage I renal mass. In: Diagnosis and treatment recommendations. American Urological Association Education and Research Inc. 2009.
Labels
Paediatric urologist Nephrology UrologyArticle was published in
Czech Urology
2012 Issue 1
Most read in this issue
- Complications associated with indwelling urethral catheter aft er major joint arthroplasty in men
- How safe is active surveillance strategy of small renal masses?
- Use of neuromodulation in the treatment of lower urinary tract dysfunction
- Bilateral adrenalectomy – in patients with Cushing’s syndrome due to ectopic secretion of ACTH